• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The psychology of climate change denial

longview said:
Once again, I do not care what the political statements from the world’s leading scientific societies say,
if the statements are not supported by the empirical data!
It saddens me a bit to see such noble institutions abandon the core of the scientific method, that the data must support the theory!
The Motto of The Royal Society of London is "Nullius in verba" 'take nobody's word for it'.
The letter is basically an appeal to authority, but let's look for fun.
The restate the Scientific consensus,

This statement alone means little, as it is true, and still of not consequence, CO2 can(and is) the primary driver, even with low sensitivity.
Now the second statement is much more subjective, because it is a conditional What IF statement.

The statement is about WHAT could Happen IF the conditions of High emission scenario, AND a high CO2 sensitivity were real.
Thankfully RCP8.5 is almost impossible, and the empirical data place the sensitivity for 2XCO2 at below 2C.
What this means is that the conditions required to meet the statement are nearly impossible!
This makes the statement political, not scientific.
Click to expand...

If you cared about science you wouldn’t simply assume that the statement from 31 leading American scientific societies is political. That the only reason you seem to have for that assumption is that their statement goes against your personal interpretation of the data. Take also for example that the list even includes the Geological Society of America that have many members in the fossil fuel industries.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
If you cared about science you wouldn’t simply assume that the statement from 31 leading American scientific societies is political. That the only reason you seem to have for that assumption is that their statement goes against your personal interpretation of the data. Take also for example that the list even includes the Geological Society of America that have many members in the fossil fuel industries.
Click to expand...

He started with the assumption that they were right. Then looked at the data. The data says that they are wrong.

If you had any clue about science, as opposed to the religious way you think, you would understand that you should not respect anybody or anything in science other than the real world. Reality is king.
 
Tim the plumber said:

He started with the assumption that they were right. Then looked at the data. The data says that they are wrong.

If you had any clue about science, as opposed to the religious way you think, you would understand that you should not respect anybody or anything in science other than the real world. Reality is king.
Click to expand...

That was my original question. That why are all those leading scientists acknowledging the urgent need for action while yourself believe that according to the data there are no need to worry?

That you and Longview should ask yourself why your interpretation of the real world is so different from the world's leading scientists' interpretation.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
That was my original question. That why are all those leading scientists acknowledging the urgent need for action while yourself believe that according to the data there are no need to worry?

That you and Longview should ask yourself why your interpretation of the real world is so different from the world's leading scientists' interpretation.
Click to expand...

AAARRRGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The thing with science is that if you ask such a question you have to make your decision based on the data. YOU must think for yourself. Simply accepting anybody else's word is religion no matter how eminent they are or how many of them there is. YOU have to think for your self!!

Edfit; not data, evidence.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
If you cared about science you wouldn’t simply assume that the statement from 31 leading American scientific societies is political. That the only reason you seem to have for that assumption is that their statement goes against your personal interpretation of the data. Take also for example that the list even includes the Geological Society of America that have many members in the fossil fuel industries.
Click to expand...
It is not an assumption! James Hansen wrote that the climate feedbacks were like the gain in an electronic circuit,
with a long lag between input and amplified output.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1984/1984_Hansen_ha07600n.pdf
To arrive at any high ECS level, will require the climate feedbacks to amplify of the forcing warming.
Yet when the output of the black box of the climate is evaluated after a 70 year lag,
only minimal signal levels can be detected as part of the amplification.
Imagine you purchased a sound bar for your television, that claimed to amplify the sound by a factor of 4, (20db).
yet with the sound bar powered up, and volume at maximum, you cannot tell if the TV is any louder, with or without the sound bar!
You do not need to know what electronics are in the sound bar, to know that it is not performing as advertised.
You do not need to assume it is not working correctly, the empirical evidence you hear, validates that the sound bar is not working.
In the case of AGW, the "sound" is the temperature record, and it is recorded in numbers.
The numbers show that after 70 years, when all the know inputs are subtracted, there is not enough output left
to support the higher level of feedbacks, I.E. the signal is not much different with or without the amplifier stage!
 
Tim the plumber said:

He started with the assumption that they were right. Then looked at the data. The data says that they are wrong.

If you had any clue about science, as opposed to the religious way you think, you would understand that you should not respect anybody or anything in science other than the real world. Reality is king.
Click to expand...

Your view of the data is incorrect
 
Tim the plumber said:

AAARRRGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The thing with science is that if you ask such a question you have to make your decision based on the data. YOU must think for yourself. Simply accepting anybody else's word is religion no matter how eminent they are or how many of them there is. YOU have to think for your self!!

.
Click to expand...

Yeah sure. But you have to be educated first. Most people can look out the window and see that the horizon is flat. And they sure as heck don’t feel the ground moving under their feet. But they would be incorrect in concluding that the Earth is flat and unmoving.

Most people don’t feel any electricity coursing through their veins. But they would be incorrect in dismissing the idea that their nerves do not conduct signals electrical signals.

These are what people without scientific education thought, thinking and observing for themselves. That’s why we don’t listen to them, but to handfuls of experts studying the subject instead.
 
ataraxia said:
Much of it was driven by popular forces such as anti-Semitism, just like the opposition to climate change today is driven by corporate interests and propaganda.

The vast majority of the experts in the field got on board in fairly short order and with minimal opposition. Consensus was never a real issue. It was only small fringe groups, like scientists associated with anti Semitism and the Nazi party, or folks like your heroes today, driven by factors other than scientific integrity, who continued to maintain opposition.
Click to expand...

Ah. Please explain what you mean by "factors other than scientific integrity" as applied to Svensmark and Shaviv.

Einstein was obviously triumphant, but opposition to his ideas was quite a bit more varied and, in some cases, thoughtful than you seem to suppose. Wikipedia actually provides a pretty good round up.

Criticism of the theory of relativity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity
wzhDIC9UYsU1MAAAAASUVORK5CYII=





Silberstein–Einstein controversy Ludwik Silberstein, who initially was a supporter of the special theory, objected at different occasions against general relativity. In 1920 he argued that the deflection of light by the sun, as observed by Arthur Eddington et al.


 
Bergslagstroll said:
That was my original question. That why are all those leading scientists acknowledging the urgent need for action while yourself believe that according to the data there are no need to worry?

That you and Longview should ask yourself why your interpretation of the real world is so different from the world's leading scientists' interpretation.
Click to expand...

Leading scientists my butt. The alarmists are a mere handful of extremist quacks, and the only reason the world is in panic is because the media is empowering these charlatans.
 
1309_anomaly.jpg


Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

AAAS emblem
American Association for the Advancement of Science
"Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening." (2014)3

ACS emblem
American Chemical Society
"The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities." (2016-2019)4

AGU emblem
American Geophysical Union
"Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. There is no alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence." (2019)5
 
AMA emblem
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2019)6

AMS emblem
American Meteorological Society
"Research has found a human influence on the climate of the past several decades ... The IPCC (2013), USGCRP (2017), and USGCRP (2018) indicate that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century." (2019)7

APS emblem
American Physical Society
"Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century." (2015)8

GSA emblem
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases ... Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013)." (2015)9

SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International Academies: Joint Statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

UNSAS emblem
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions."11

U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
USGCRP emblem
U.S. Global Change Research Program
"Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities." (2018, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES
IPCC emblem
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13

“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14




Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
 
ataraxia said:
Yeah sure. But you have to be educated first. Most people can look out the window and see that the horizon is flat. And they sure as heck don’t feel the ground moving under their feet. But they would be incorrect in concluding that the Earth is flat and unmoving.

Most people don’t feel any electricity coursing through their veins. But they would be incorrect in dismissing the idea that their nerves do not conduct signals electrical signals.

These are what people without scientific education thought, thinking and observing for themselves. That’s why we don’t listen to them, but to handfuls of experts studying the subject instead.
Click to expand...

Given that those of us with a basic scientific education and understanding can see that Longview has at least that and that you don't at all have the slightest clue you will have to take our word that if we found that he was spouting drivel we would say so.

I can demonstrate that the earth rotates without referencing the sky. Can you?
 
swing_voter said:
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2

AAAS emblem
American Association for the Advancement of Science
"Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening." (2014)3

ACS emblem
American Chemical Society
"The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities." (2016-2019)4

AGU emblem
American Geophysical Union
"Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. There is no alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence." (2019)5
Click to expand...

[h=2]How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted[/h]
 
swing_voter said:
Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
Click to expand...
I am sorry, citing Nasa's Scientific Consensus page means nothing, if you do not understand how limited their consensus statement is.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*:
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
Click to expand...
In that statement, what is it that 97% agrees with?
It states it in a single sentence,
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
Almost everyone agrees that temperatures have increased over the last century,
and almost everyone agrees that human activity played a role in some of that warming.
No part of the statement implies that additional CO2 emissions will produce catastrophic warming,
so when people imply that consensus statements like NASA's also support the full suite of catastrophic predictions,
they are at best being misleading!
 
longview said:
I am sorry, citing Nasa's Scientific Consensus page means nothing, if you do not understand how limited their consensus statement is.


In that statement, what is it that 97% agrees with?
It states it in a single sentence,
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
Almost everyone agrees that temperatures have increased over the last century,
and almost everyone agrees that human activity played a role in some of that warming.
No part of the statement implies that additional CO2 emissions will produce catastrophic warming,
so when people imply that consensus statements like NASA's also support the full suite of catastrophic predictions,
they are at best being misleading!
Click to expand...

Yup, if science was decided by consensus then the world would be flat and the sun revolves around the earth.
 
vegas giants said:
Climate Science Denial Explained: Tactics of Denial
Click to expand...

On the opposite side of denial are people with the counter-agenda, who avidly seek to use climate change to draw political battleground lines and point to it as the common causal denominator of practically all climate and environmental events. Upsurge in desert locusts? Climate change. Record high temperatures somewhere in the world? Climate change. Record lows somewhere in the world? Climate change. Record rainfall somewhere in the world? Climate change. Drought somewhere?
Climate change. Declining population of some organism or another? Climate change.

The deniers and skeptics fuel the agenda-driven people on the opposite side, and vice versa, the agenda-driven people fuel the deniers and skeptics.
 
Neomalthusian said:
On the opposite side of denial are people with the counter-agenda, who avidly seek to use climate change to draw political battleground lines and point to it as the common causal denominator of practically all climate and environmental events. Upsurge in desert locusts? Climate change. Record high temperatures somewhere in the world? Climate change. Record lows somewhere in the world? Climate change. Record rainfall somewhere in the world? Climate change. Drought somewhere?
Climate change. Declining population of some organism or another? Climate change.

The deniers and skeptics fuel the agenda-driven people on the opposite side, and vice versa, the agenda-driven people fuel the deniers and skeptics.
Click to expand...

Stick with the science. There are extremists on both sides. But the center is AGW is a serious problem that requires some action
 
PoS said:
Yup, if science was decided by consensus then the world would be flat and the sun revolves around the earth.
Click to expand...

Science always changes as new observations and models come out. That does not mean that the latest science on the consensus of the experts should be discredited and dismissed. But the consensus is changed among the experts, by the experts. Uneducated and inexperienced laypeople have no say in the matter. Science is not a democracy. You have to know what you’re talking about before you get to have a say in the matter.
 
PoS said:
Yup, if science was decided by consensus then the world would be flat and the sun revolves around the earth.
Click to expand...

Odd... because the consensus is that neither of these things are true.


Maybe you don’t understand the word ‘consensus’?

It wouldn’t be surprising, tbh.
 
vegas giants said:
Stick with the science. There are extremists on both sides. But the center is AGW is a serious problem that requires some action
Click to expand...

Extremists and agenda-driven people rarely perceive themselves as such.

If a person is pointing to AGW to explain damn near everything notable that happens in the natural world, and repetitively goes back to making sweeping unspecified proclamations that we have "a problem that requires action," then that person falls on the side of being agenda-driven.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Given that those of us with a basic scientific education and understanding can see that Longview has at least that and that you don't at all have the slightest clue you will have to take our word that if we found that he was spouting drivel we would say so.
Click to expand...


This is like one first grader having an opinion on quantum mechanics, and others thinking they have the background and "basic scientific education" to agree or disagree with him. Laughable. That's not to say they shouldn't think for themselves. But first they need more than a "basic education" for their opinion to count.

I can demonstrate that the earth rotates without referencing the sky. Can you?
Click to expand...

People all over the world didn't think it rotates until just a few centuries ago- any time in history, any place in the whole world. Are you telling me you would have been somehow different?
 
Threegoofs said:
Odd... because the consensus is that neither of these things are true.
Click to expand...
Because the consensus was proving wrong. So your current consensus belief is just as wrong. Thanks for playing.
 
Jack Hays said:
Ah. Please explain what you mean by "factors other than scientific integrity" as applied to Svensmark and Shaviv.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Could be lots of things.

The best case scenario I can think of, and probably the most likely, is just that they are scientists working on the fringes of the field, "kicking the tires" on the theory and trying to find alternative models. No one is shutting them down, of course. Their papers are still being approved by their peers in the peer-reviewed journals in the field. So these peers are aware of their work and allowing them to continue to speak and try to make their case. So there is nothing personal against them by the scientific community.

But those same peers have not felt that they have yet made their case. There are scientists like Shaviv and Svensmark in all sorts of disciplines, and very rarely do they succeed in making a strong enough case to create some fundamental paradigm shift and change the consensus of the scientific community. The vast majority of them end up being forgotten as the science moves on. It seems the trends on this particular subject are moving strongly in that direction. Eventually even Shaviv and Svensmark may just realize they are barking up the wrong tree and give up. That's usually the heavy probability in such situations. But hey, folks like them serve a valuable service in being the contrarian voices and making sure all criticisms are being addressed as the theory becomes solidified.

Of course there are worse case scenarios as well: that they are just paid shills or just a little kooky. I don't know about Shaviv or Svensmark directly, but I suspect many of the "scientists" involved in climate change denial are in that camp. How do I know? Because many of them are the very same ones hired by the tobacco company to deny the smoking/cancer link back when that was a big social issue.

Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public - Scientific American
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom